Skip to main content

Reply to this post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: TrajkoDangov Date: Feb 28, 2009 6:12am
Forum: texts Subject: Question about copyright

Hey guys, can you please tell me, if it says "NOT_IN_COPYRIGHT" on the book I'm searching through archive.org, does that mean that I can do whatever I want with it, even sell it?

Thanks a lot,
Trajko

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: garthus Date: Mar 2, 2009 8:16pm
Forum: texts Subject: Re: Question about copyright

Copyright-Only Dedication (based on United States law) or Public Domain Certification

The person or persons who have associated work with this document (the "Dedicator" or "Certifier") hereby either (a) certifies that, to the best of his knowledge, the work of authorship identified is in the public domain of the country from which the work is published, or (b) hereby dedicates whatever copyright the dedicators holds in the work of authorship identified below (the "Work") to the public domain. A certifier, moreover, dedicates any copyright interest he may have in the associated work, and for these purposes, is described as a "dedicator" below.

A certifier has taken reasonable steps to verify the copyright status of this work. Certifier recognizes that his good faith efforts may not shield him from liability if in fact the work certified is not in the public domain.

Dedicator makes this dedication for the benefit of the public at large and to the detriment of the Dedicator's heirs and successors. Dedicator intends this dedication to be an overt act of relinquishment in perpetuity of all present and future rights under copyright law, whether vested or contingent, in the Work. Dedicator understands that such relinquishment of all rights includes the relinquishment of all rights to enforce (by lawsuit or otherwise) those copyrights in the Work.

Dedicator recognizes that, once placed in the public domain, the Work may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, used, modified, built upon, or otherwise exploited by anyone for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, and in any way, including by methods that have not yet been invented or conceived.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: BoloResartus Date: Mar 3, 2009 4:26pm
Forum: texts Subject: Re: Question about copyright

this is a pretty muddy area in some ways, the Archive has
it's own policies. If you do a search of texts you'll find
a very recent book on the subject. There are also a series
of videos of a college class on the subject here, Cory
Doctorow is the teacher and searching using his name will turn them up along with the MP3s of the class.
Where it gets strange is that the laws of different countries
are not uniform, so works which are unrestricted in USA
according to the constitutional laws here may not be the
same elsewhere. While appearing calm there is a real under-current of activism around this issue, a lot of us do not
appreciate the concept of taking works out of circulation for a hundred years just so Disney et. al. can maintain
their death grip on Mickey Mouse.

So, do a little research, get a firm grasp on your local
version of copyright and get involved in the fight.

Regards
Dave

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: garthus Date: Mar 2, 2009 6:13pm
Forum: texts Subject: Re: Question about copyright

Trajko,

Any of the open source stuff is free to do what ever you want with. Under creative commons license you can sell it as long as you do not place restrictive copyrights on its use.

Or the use of works derived from same.

Gerry

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: stbalbach Date: Mar 3, 2009 6:03am
Forum: texts Subject: Re: Question about copyright

Gerry,

I don't think that is the case, per Internet Archive's `Terms of Use` described above: "noncommercial" use only. This is verified by the experience of publicdomainreprints.org, a non-profit, who had to get permission from Internet Archive to sell books. The publisher Penguin Classics, for instance, could not sell book reprints based on Internet Archive scans. No?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: garthus Date: Mar 3, 2009 7:09am
Forum: texts Subject: Re: Question about copyright

stbalbach,

Internet archive as per creative commons copyright which they have posted on their site cannot restrict the use of materials which are licensed under creative commons license. They can restrict access to other items not posted under open source. I am quite familiar with copyright rules; as I work for a library consortium.

"Dedicator recognizes that, once placed in the public domain, the Work may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, used, modified, built upon, or otherwise exploited by anyone for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, and in any way, including by methods that have not yet been invented or conceived."

Note the for any purpose. I do not know how anyone would get the idea that public domain items could be restricted in this way. This is actually what makes the archive different from google. And yes, penguin books could reprint and sell anything licensed under creative commons as public domain as long as they did not place any restrictions on the distribution of that particular item.

Gerry

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: stbalbach Date: Mar 3, 2009 7:23am
Forum: texts Subject: Re: Question about copyright

Gerry,

Can you show Internet Archive book scans are covered under Creative Commons? I looked at the `Terms of Use` page and nothing about Creative Commons.

I looked at the FAQ (section: "Can I search by Creative Commons License?")

http://www.archive.org/about/faqs.php

and it says each individual work has a metadata tag with its license. However, the vast majority of texts in the archive have no license metadata tag at all. But most do have a "possible copyright status" = "not in copyright" - but no license information.

In any case, there is a contradiction here. The `Terms of Use` says the material can't be used for commercial purposes. Just using common sense, it makes no sense, to me, that Internet Archive would allow anyone to re-sell its scans for a profit, to build a business off it. Or that the libraries themselves, who gave permission to do the scans, ever intended for businesses to resell and profit from it. The `Terms of Use` seem to concur with this sentiment.

Have you spoken with anyone at Internet Archive about this?

Stephen

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: garthus Date: Mar 3, 2009 7:48am
Forum: texts Subject: Re: Question about copyright

When the item is uploaded to the archive the user has a choice whether to place it under creative commons in the public domain, if they do it falls under the open source collection, which then comes under the rules which I am talking about.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/

Would appear under the license line. You are correct that if this is not under the license line than the rules of the Internet Archive would apply. I place all of my materials up this way, therefore anyone can use them for any purpose as long as they do not incorporate them into a product which places restrictive copyrights on the items which are included.

Gerry

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: stbalbach Date: Mar 3, 2009 8:29am
Forum: texts Subject: Re: Question about copyright

Gerry,

I think the `Terms of Use` is still a binding contract. Even though the work is the Public Domain, or a Creative Commons license, since it's located on Internet Archive's website, it is bound by the websites `Terms of Use`, which says "noncommercial", "research purposes".

Which brings up an interesting question. If the scan was copied to another website that had no ToU, would it than be unrestricted? There is no intellectual property license, other than PD, and once it is off the website and copied elsewhere (torrent, usenet, other websites) - how can a website ToU be binding?

Perhaps to answer my own question, the ToU says it can only be used for "research purposes", which would exclude making it available for download for commercial purposes. I dunno, confusing and I'm not a lawyer. At the end of the day, the ToU about "research purposes only" and "noncommercial" seems to be the spirit of it.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: garthus Date: Mar 3, 2009 2:20pm
Forum: texts Subject: Re: Question about copyright

stbalbach,

I guess this will only be decided when it is litigated (unfortunately). However the copyright declaration does belong to the producer of the work and not the web site hosting agency. Anything not specifically denoted as falling under Creative Commons would obviously apply to IA's usage policy. How it applies to what I put up under the creative commons though is specified under the license itself and not the web site's usage policy. As you point out if someone emailed me and I sent them the same file it will still be covered under the copyright which I designated when I created the item.

Gerry

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Time Traveller Date: Mar 4, 2009 12:38am
Forum: texts Subject: Re: Question about copyright

Anybody downloading an item from the Archive, signals his agreement to abide by any restrictions attached to that particular item, by the author, maybe the up loader too but also certainly the Archive's own restrictions. (but would the Archive enforce their own restrictions if broken?)

I am sure that the Archive and/or scanner up-loader can only ADD (not reduce)restrictions to an items copyright and that would be mainly the Archives not for profit restrictions, I believe the archive would be concerned if somebody downloaded a lot of the higher quality material which were in effect donated free of charge to the archive, and placed the material on a similar archive, maybe a specialist archive on one subject, and charged for each download. That would upset people whom freely donated their works of art to the archive, the fact that somebody is profiting from their work. And then fewer people would be donating their work. And the Archive would lose out.

Whatever is uploaded to the Archive, I believe the copyright priority lies with the original material, no matter how many times its been reproduced, as in copies of copies, digital files do not degrade each time they are copied, and an item still under copyright can not have its copyright cancelled merely by uploading it to an area of the archive or some other website with no copyright restrictions. and the same if the item is modified, it STILL belongs to the original author.

A full copyright automaticly goes onto any work of art (that includes text, video audio etc) the second it is produced, there is no requirement for the author or producer to attach any kind of copyright notice to get full copy protection. The reason being that therefore the item MUST always be assumed to be fully protected, unless the author of the work of art adds a notice removing or modifying the automatic full copyright protection. Call it a Fail-safe protection. And it is possible that the author or rights owner can increase the standard protection by adding a notice. Like on movie DVDs, not for public show, not for show in institutions, etc.

An up-loader of his own personal material intended to have no copyright restrictions, or less than full copyright therefore must always attach a notice modifying the standard automatic protection on any work of art he owns the copyright of.

So summing up, every work of art must be assumed to have full copyright protection, wherever you find it, even if no copyright notice is attached, and only if the original author attaches a notice modifying the full automatic protection of his work of art, it must be assumed the item is protected to the maximum. The other option is when the up-loader attached a note saying there is no visible copyright, that means it is so old, that the standard automatic protection has expired.

That is certainly different from patent laws.

By saying something like "No VISIBLE copyright", the up-loader is saying he could be wrong and the item could still be fully protected, that removes any future legal liability from the Archive and up-loader and transfers the liability to the down-loader should the item still be protected and the original author, or agent of, or copyright owner sue for compensation or payment for the work of art.

But what is worrying for owners of copyright, is that choosing to upload his/her work of art to certain websites signals agreement by the author that he agrees to transfer all his rights to his work of art, the right to profit by his work, to that website. So it pays to always read the small print, merely uploading your work, legally indicates (according to the small print) that you fully read and understood the small print, and agreed you have transferred full ownership of your work of art to the website owners, AND given up all your rights to change your mind, and all your rights to any or future payment should your work of art be worth millions when/if on-sold. You even lose your right to restrict how your item is used by that website

but an interesting subject to think about regarding copyright of material on the WWW, considering that every country in the world has different periods of copyright, and some allow extensions of time and all have different restrictions.

Which standard copyright applies to an item,

1 The country the item is produced IN.

2 Or the country the item is downloaded TO,

3 Or the country the item is downloaded FROM

And what if the down loader then uploads it to a distribution media in another county with another set of copyright laws?

With the advent of the WWW, digital (not analogue works of art) and home PCs able to make untold digital copies, it seems that the worlds copyright laws badly need overhauling, and it might be a matter for the United Nations to make one law that applies worldwide so there is no confusion by people enabling lawyers to earn big money by defending authors rights.

IE, does the Archives copyright notice on each item apply worldwide equally, or just in the USA where the archive is located?

Do some countries have so strong copyright laws, that make it illegal for their citizens to download ANYTHING at all from the Archive?


and I forgot, any breach of copyright, it is always the copyright owner (or association of owners, such as the ones taking action on the P2P MP3 breachers) that has to take legal action, at his or her own cost, there is no publicly funded Copyright Enforcement Agency that I know of, so really a copyright just gives the owner the RIGHT to take legal action if the owner BECOMES aware of a copyright breach.

and I forgot, copyright is automatic, because there is no agency to register your work of art and hold a copy of, for possible future legal actions. And due to the number of works of art produced each minute, there will be no such agency in the future.

Copyright owners without much money for legal actions to enforce their rights, therefore are helpless. So really, the lower value items, copyright is based on honesty.

And honestly is in short supply in certain areas of the World.



This post was modified by Time Traveller on 2009-03-04 08:38:26

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: garthus Date: Jul 21, 2010 8:27pm
Forum: texts Subject: Re: Question about copyright

TimeTraveller,

Great summation. One thing that should be carefully understood though is that the person who reproduces a public domain work only has rights to the specific digital reproduction which they created, the original work still remains in the public domain. That is why those who care about public access must place ans many of the digital reproductions of public domain items into the creative commons licenses. That will permanently prevent any others from trying to monopolize the digital reproductions of public domain works. I go one step further and place all of my other work into the creative commons license. Hopefully, this will facilitate the creation of a large public domain database which cannot be restricted by the corporate hacks.

Gerry

This post was modified by garthus on 2010-07-22 03:27:52

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Time Traveller Date: Mar 4, 2009 3:21pm
Forum: texts Subject: Re: Question about copyright

The large public data base you mention, would in affect be also a means of registering your ownership of your work of art, AS WELL AS your MEANS of publishing your work of art.

Because with lower value items, without an agency to register your ownership with, you also have the issue of proving by yourself your own ownership priority should somebody sue YOU for breach of copyright on a work of art which he claims is his own work, NOT yours.

A lot of copyright legal action is about just who is the owner BEFORE any copyright breach can be argued.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: dudeman5685 Date: Mar 16, 2009 3:46pm
Forum: texts Subject: Re: Question about copyright


Attention New Zealand Time Traveller

I mean specifically the guy who posts things on this board from time to time, not any random Kiwi time traveler who may be reading this.

I got an idea I would like to propose to you, a little experiment in co-operative antipodean book uploading. If your interested e-mail me at my screen name (dudeman5685) at yahoo.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Time Traveller Date: Mar 4, 2009 12:33pm
Forum: texts Subject: Re: Question about copyright

yes I agreed, I was thinking about a fully protected item, where full protection can not be cancelled out by a slight modification, because full protection automaticly means nobody has the rights of modification. And that is very gray, it depends on how much modification, but there has even been legal action when a plot of a best seller has been copied, with none of the text.

Also always attaching a notice of limitations is important, rather than relying on the Archives standard notice.

Because once downloaded, the Archives standard notice is no longer there to see, or even linked to it.

It needs something like what you have in the open source software world.

This software is free to distribute, BUT MUST ALWAYS be accompanied by this notice.

Without that, some people may innocently forward an item, from the Archive (even to a site which demands full ownership) and the receiver is not aware of the restrictions, and begins distributing for big profit.

And I sure some 3rd world publishing companies are watching out for such items, FROM the Archive which have been forwarded to another web site without the original restrictions notice. That appears to be a loophole, making it very hard for the original owner to take legal action against the publishing company, because the legal offender is the person moving the item from the Archive to another location which states on its own Terms of Use that its downloads are TOTALLY free of restrictions. And not even that web site can be legally held accountable.

ergo, the person downloading the item from the Archive, and forwarding the item without the Archives standard restrictions notice, is the only entity (poor, no money to pay compensation) that can be held accountable if further up the line, a $1,000,000 profit type copyright breach occurs.

One restriction idea, This item is free to modify, but not to be used for profit, AND MUST ALWAYS be credited back to the original work and author AND MUST ALWAYS be accompanied by this restriction notice.

But remember, unless you have heaps of money, it is impossible to enforce your own ownership of any work of art that you produce. that's because copyright laws were meant only for commercial publishers before the WWW and the technology enabling anybody and everybody to be a publisher. Think of Desktop Publishing and a Laser Printer as opposed to a publishing company with lots of people to edit and refine best sellers, and an enormous printing press. AND a whole page of the book lays out the copy restrictions and what will happen if a breach occurs. And they have the money to back up, not their threats (bluffs) but their promises.

You can be sure that the movie publishing associations with lots of profits at stake have a paid watcher continually monitoring the Archive and other popular websites, watching for breaches.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: garthus Date: Mar 3, 2009 7:56am
Forum: texts Subject: Re: Question about copyright

The key concept is not the use for a "profit", but that the use cannot be associated with any restrictive copyright or access rules. I do not care whether someone makes a profit on materials which I put up, the trade-off is that those materials will be forever in the public domain, regardless of there use.

Gerry

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: stbalbach Date: Feb 28, 2009 8:30am
Forum: texts Subject: Re: Question about copyright

According to Internet Archive's 'Terms of Use'

http://www.archive.org/about/terms.php

"[Internet Archive] is provided at no cost to you and is granted for scholarship and research purposes only. .. your use of any part of the Archive's Collections will be noncommercial"

One example is publicdomainreprints.org which is a non-profit. Internet Archive gave it permission to resell scans (as printed books), it's a service for people who want printed copies of scans. So I guess if your a non-profit ("noncommercial") you can sell scans/books (but check with IA).